Leaving behind the d20 System

[Lancer]

3E has less dice rolling and streamlined rules.

 

More streamlined.. But I dunno about less die-rolling. If you want to talk about roll-play and munchkinism, nothing beats 3E.

 

Just because 3e is more streamlined doesn't necessarily make it a better system. The fact that PCs now can have a zillion classes is just plain absurd.

 

If you content 3 years isn't enough to learn a rules system, then that system is too complex and your expectations are whacked.  I keep quoting systems you can pick up and play right away.  I can teach a player to play D6 in minutes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Enough time to learn a rules system, but apparently not enough to customize it.

And at a junior high level, you probably were not thinking about customizing AD&D to your liking. I don't blame you.

[Lancer]

Rolling dice do not make a character.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Agreed. I hate that in AD&D. I want to *make* characters. But in AD&D there is a tendency for players to roll and then see what they can get away with...

 

I have always hated rolling for characters. I use point-buy.

[EnderAndrew]

Multiclassing and dual-classing in 2E was absured. And you want to talk twink while defending 2E? 2E is all about broken spells, of which there 200, mixing various kits, etc. Elves in general are completely broken in 2E.

[Lancer]

Multiclassing and dual-classing in 2E was absured.  And you want to talk twink while defending 2E?  2E is all about broken spells, of which there 200, mixing various kits, etc.  Elves in general are completely broken in 2E.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

There are no multi-class/dual-class characters in Mystara.. For one..

 

Min-maxing of stats also allows characters of skill-based systems to be broken as well.

i.e. GURPS, FUZION..etc

 

An experienced DM/GM can address all the problems inherent with *ALL* rulesets whether skill-based or class-based.

[EnderAndrew]

We're not talking about specific rulesets, and the base rules don't include horribly broken rules out of the box in other major systems.

 

The only way Elves are remotely balanced is that they can't progress past certain levels in classes, which is a really poor methodology for balancing.

[Lancer]

The only way Elves are remotely balanced is that they can't progress past certain levels in classes, which is a really poor methodology for balancing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Any worse than the GM telling a player they can't have THAT set of skills/stats or else the skill-based game will get horribly broken?

 

So much for complete customization.

[Lancer]

We're not talking about specific rulesets, and the base rules don't include horribly broken rules out of the box in other major systems.

 

Huh? You were specifically talking about 2ndEd and how broken elves, magic and the mult-classing rules are. I counter with the min-maxing problem in GURPS or FUZION or many other skill-based systems.

 

Not to mention that GURPS breaks with powerful characters as well.

[EnderAndrew]

GURPS might break if you really went out of your way to twink. The most popular core class in AD&D is broken right off the bat.

[Jediphile]

I started with OD&D back in '92-93..Then I moved on to AD&D. Some 12-13 years of experience. When you have over a decade to fool around with it, you start tinkering with it until it becomes something that you are proud of and does what you want it to do. Apparently, this doesn't work for everybody though (Jediphile).

But for every person like Jediphile I assure you that there is a person that feels like I do.

 

I have a theory-- It seems that the more time you have to tinker with a system "fixing" its problems the more likely you will come to like it. People who have short stays with AD&D are much more likely to find other systems much better since for all practical purposes they just didn't play with it enough to address its problems.

 

When you stay long enough with a system AND successfully tailor it to your tastes over the years you won't find other systems better.. believe me...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

While you're perfectly entitled to your opinion, no, you're not right in general. I have written extensive house rules for my AD&D campaign and revised them endless times. And my conclusion is that it is an exercise in futility, since the game will never have the options and variety that it should. It's simply easier to throw the whole thing out and try something else.

 

That's not as easy as it may sound like, though. After all, writing extensive house rules of many, many pages and revising them several times means that I have a lot of time invested in the game. To abandon it is to let all my hard work to *make* the system work regardless of how flawed it was go to waste. That makes it hard to turn over a new page and start from scratch.

 

I'm there now, though. I'm determined to drop AD&D totally and completely when the current campaign ends, which may be sooner than planned. Trouble is, what will I play instead... GURPS has some promise, but also some problems, and a new set of house rules is something I want to avoid like the plague...

 

Maybe I'll try some Ars Magica for a while. That has an excellent magic system (instead of all those annoying AD&D spell descriptions)...

[EnderAndrew]

Shadowrun's system is a bit obtuse, but I really like their magic system.

 

White Wolf's Mage has a really good magic system as well. You have spheres of control, and certail rituals you memorize, but you can invent dynamic magic on the fly. There is no mana or spell slots. There is Quintessence and Paradox however.

[Lancer]

While you're perfectly entitled to your opinion, no, you're not right in general. I have written extensive house rules for my AD&D campaign and revised them endless times. And my conclusion is that it is an exercise in futility, since the game will never have the options and variety that it should. It's simply easier to throw the whole thing out and try something else.

 

That's not as easy as it may sound like, though. After all, writing extensive house rules of many, many pages and revising them several times means that I have a lot of time invested in the game. To abandon it is to let all my hard work to *make* the system work regardless of how flawed it was go to waste. That makes it hard to turn over a new page and start from scratch.

 

I'm there now, though. I'm determined to drop AD&D totally and completely when the current campaign ends, which may be sooner than planned. Trouble is, what will I play instead... GURPS has some promise, but also some problems, and a new set of house rules is something I want to avoid like the plague...

 

Maybe I'll try some Ars Magica for a while. That has an excellent magic system (instead of all those annoying AD&D spell descriptions)...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I am only not right in the case of perfectionists like you

 

The problem is that I get the impression from your posts that you will never be satisfied with any ruleset. You are never going to be satisfied because you will always find faults with any ruleset you come across. You are too damn picky.

 

I say , pick a system, tailor it to your liking and don't worry about it. Or just make your own.. Might be the only solution to your problem.

[Lancer]

In fact, in Jediphile's case.. Forget about other rulesets entirely. Just finish making your own.

It will be the only way you will find some peace

[EnderAndrew]

I for one am quite satisfied with many rulesets, and I think AD&D is one of the absolute worst I've ever seen.

[Lancer]

I for one am quite satisfied with many rulesets, and I think AD&D is one of the absolute worst I've ever seen.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But Jediphile isn't.

 

Again.. you see? People are different. I am different from you or Jediphile. You are different from him and so on..

 

It all comes full circle to tastes and subjective preferences once again.

 

You can talk about strengths and weaknesses of systems all day long (and even claim a system's superiority) until you are blue in the face but at the end of the day these are still based on one's own subjective preferences (which are neither right or wrong).

[Lancer]

GURPS might break if you really went out of your way to twink.  The most popular core class in AD&D is broken right off the bat.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't know about that. My classes are just fine especially if you spotlight everyone's abilities.

[EnderAndrew]

No, I rolled dice and AD&D lost. :darque:

[alanschu]

Oh please, illusionists always sucked, and they still do - all the wizard specialists do. They're just watered-down imitations of the wizard to make the game seem a little more diverse.

 

I think you completely missed the point. I wasn't trumping the wizard or the specialist mage, in any way. I don't see what the point is of your "specialists suck" rant here, because it doesn't address my concern.

 

I think it's dumb that given equal or even better attributes, the Gnome was restricted. I find it silly that a Gnome is able to learn the magics of the illusionist specialty class, but no way jose to just being a normal mage. "That's just silly."

 

 

AD&D racist? Like it's racist that AD&D humans can't be fighter/mages or other multi-classes? If AD&D is racist, it's at least racist across the board...

 

The Human can dual class if he prefers. And the multiclassing/dual-classing junk just makes AD&D more nonsensical IMO.

[Cantousent]

To save myself the trouble, I just hate all gnomes.

[alanschu]

Hehehe

[Jediphile]

I think you completely missed the point.  I wasn't trumping the wizard or the specialist mage, in any way.  I don't see what the point is of your "specialists suck" rant here, because it doesn't address my concern.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Sorry. It's a pet peeve with me and I got carried away. My bad :">

 

No wait - AD&D made me do it! :cool:

 

I think it's dumb that given equal or even better attributes, the Gnome was restricted.  I find it silly that a Gnome is able to learn the magics of the illusionist specialty class, but no way jose to just being a normal mage.  "That's just silly."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think the reason is that gnomes are typically seen as tricksters and deceivers in fantasy and not so much as powerful wizards like Gandalf or Merlin. So it wouldn't quite fit the archetype, and D&D is all about archetypes.

 

The Human can dual class if he prefers.  And the multiclassing/dual-classing junk just makes AD&D more nonsensical IMO.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, if your point is that the multi/dual-class system in 2e is flawed, then I'm scarcely about to disagree. This is one area where I actually think that 3e is better. But it's still in the 2e rules that humans cannot multi-class, so the AD&D 'racism' does go both ways, at least.

[alanschu]

Humans could still circumvent the multiclass be dual classing. That was the main point I was trying to make.

 

 

So it wouldn't quite fit the archetype, and D&D is all about archetypes

 

Fair enough, but I think the archetypes are still too restrictive, given that the archetypes are just formed by stories that people weave. I think it becomes a circle, where AD&D has no gnomish mages because they don't exist. Yet they can't exist because AD&D has no gnomish mages, so you'd have to bend the rules (at which point I would consider AD&D to no longer be truly used anymore).

[Jediphile]

Humans could still circumvent the multiclass be dual classing.  That was the main point I was trying to make.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, yes and no. Dual-classing is similar to multi-classes, but it's still not the same - there are advantages and disadvantages to either. The problem with dual class is that you have to decide in advance how far you want to take it, and once you reach that point, you can go no further in that class. And then you basically start over with a new class from scratch...

 

The players I've know really would consider it if they were allowed to build characters with a good number of levels (7+) and much experience, so that they could arrange it so that they would begin play already being higher level in the new class than the old. When I told them that I wouldn't allow them to circumvent the one major disadvantage a dual-classed character must take in order to reap the benefits, they simply chose not to play them at all...

 

So it wouldn't quite fit the archetype, and D&D is all about archetypes

 

Fair enough, but I think the archetypes are still too restrictive, given that the archetypes are just formed by stories that people weave. I think it becomes a circle, where AD&D has no gnomish mages because they don't exist. Yet they can't exist because AD&D has no gnomish mages, so you'd have to bend the rules (at which point I would consider AD&D to no longer be truly used anymore).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The classes are too restrictive in (A)D&D, yes, but the archetypes cannot be said to be restrictive - archetypes simply are. Whether you adhere to them or not in a story is your own choosing, but it's difficult to deny that they do have signficance in our literary history of fairy tales and fantasy and the culture that emerges from that. Most D&D worlds choose to embrace those archetypes because they are familiar to the audience - rangers seemed to have the ability to use crystal balls in 1e simply because Aragorn could use a palantir in "Return of the King", for example, so that had to go into the rules. Is that a restrictive archetype or is it simply adhering to the literary heritage of fantasy?

 

But as new stories are written, the rules will change. Willow didn't quite become popular enough to allow halflings to be wizards, but it might have been. Besides, I find it much easier to have restrictive rules in these cases and then overrule them as GM than the other way around - it's difficult to argue to players that something is not allowed when the rules say that it is, but giving express permission on a case-by-case basis is simple and easy. You want gnomish wizards in your campaign, then go ahead - lift the ban. Heck, I've thought about having a half-orc paladin in my AD&D campaign simply because it would be such an unusual novelty. The point is, however, that it wouldn't be if half-orcs were permitted in general. A halfling wizard is special because halflings are not supposed to be wizards. Same thing with half-orcish paladins. If you lift that restriction then you also make such unique characters common and boring.